RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Ron and believe the GNSO should determine whether or not it wants 
public comment after it receives recommendations from the SCI.

[cid:530451318@22062012-2FBB]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> • 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:46 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Wolf-Ulrich,

Thanks for this revision, but it doesn’t resolve the matter as I had hoped.  As 
I noted in my previous email:

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public 
comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a 
Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough 
edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.  Therefore, 
it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to 
ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.

For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states:

Further steps:
•          How to deal with the consensus items?
- Back to council?
- Council post it for Public Comment?
•          How to deal with items raised by individuals?

I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community for 
public comment.  The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the number of 
topics that need consideration and public comments – to add yet more to that 
pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do, IMHO.

For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open a 
can of worms, which could be avoided at this point.

I see our guiding principal as, “What makes ICANN function more efficiently?”  
Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back – yet again – to the 
community for public comment is the opposite of that.

My two cents…

RA


Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

________________________________
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording. 
From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to 
public comment.
The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council 
for public comment.

Is the following version agreed?


 Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich 
- with one exception.  The second to last slide creates an issue that could, 
and should be avoided at this time.

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public 
comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a 
Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough 
edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.  Therefore, 
it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to 
ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.

Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the 
matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my 
view.  For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11



________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
All,

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel 
free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

Best regards
Wolf-




________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying 
to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of 
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.